9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 1227 - AAR - GSTLevy of Entry Tax - Tran-I provision of MPGST - proviso to Section 98 (2) of the GST Act 2017 - HELD THAT - A plain reading of Section 97(2) of GST Act clearly implies that the any question relating to Input Tax in TRAN-1. which falls under transitional provision shall be out of purview of Advance Ruling. Admissibility of input tax credit as given in section 97(2) of GST Act relates to input tax credit as defined in Section 2(63) of GST Act 2017 read with Section 2(62) ibid and not the Input Tax in TRAN-1 carried forward in TRAN-1. which categorically pertains to pre-GST regime. Thus the question placed does not fall within four corners of issues defined for seeking advance ruling under Section 97(2) ibid. Hence the application does not hold ground to be admitted on this count. It is important to mention here that Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax Sagar Division Madhya Pradesh had already decided the issue of getting credit of Entry Tax in TRAN-1 in his order dated 24.02.2020 in the applicant s case of Entry Tax Act pertaining to period 01.04.2017-30.06.2017. Proviso to Section 98 (2) of the GST Act 2017 - HELD THAT - The applicant had not only raised this particular issue in respect of which Advance Ruling is sought vide application under consideration before the jurisdictional officers but also the issue has been already decided in the applicant s Entry Tax Act case for the period 01.04.2017-30.06.2017. Application rejected.
Issues:
1. Whether Entry Tax is allowed under Tran-I provision of MPGST? Analysis: 1. Brief Facts of the Case: The Applicant, engaged in manufacturing high-class bidi, sought clarification on the allowance of Entry Tax under Tran-I provision of MPGST. 2. Question Raised: The main query posed was regarding the permissibility of Entry Tax under Tran-I provision of MPGST. 3. Department's Viewpoint: The Joint Commissioner highlighted that Advance Ruling Provisions apply to questions specified in the CGST Act, relating to the supply of goods or services. Entry Tax, being an additional state levy, was deemed outside the scope of Advance Ruling provisions meant solely for GST matters. 4. Record of Personal Hearing: During the virtual hearing, the Applicant's representatives reiterated their stance on claiming Entry Tax credit under Tran-1 provision, supported by relevant rules and conditions. 5. Discussions and Findings: The Authority scrutinized the case, emphasizing that questions related to Input Tax in Tran-1, a transitional provision, fall outside the purview of Advance Ruling. As per Section 97(2) of GST Act, issues concerning Input Tax credit do not encompass Input Tax carried forward in Tran-1 from the pre-GST era. 6. Decision and Ruling: Citing Section 98(2) of the GST Act, the Authority rejected the application, noting that the matter had already been decided by the Deputy Commissioner in the applicant's Entry Tax Act case. Consequently, the application was deemed inadmissible, and the ruling was issued to reject the applicant's claim. 7. Conclusion: The judgment concluded by rejecting the application and affirming the ruling's validity, subject to specific provisions of the GST Act until declared void under relevant sections.
|
